Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 787 F.2d 1179 - In the Matter of Frederick G. Johnson and Vallera J. Johnson, A/k/a, Vallera K. Joyner, Debtors-Appellants

In the Matter of Frederick G. Johnson and Vallera J. Johnson, A/k/a, Vallera K. Joyner, Debtors-Appellants’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner (1987), In re Longardner & Associates, Inc. (1988)

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

2201986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 11 U.S.C. § 523 · 11 U.S.C. § 524

Relies on Johnson v. Righetti · Busic v. United States · Erlenbaugh v. United States · United States v. Estus · Davis v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Section 294f(g) is both the more specific and the later of the two statutes. Section 294f(g) is much more limited in scope than section 1328(a). Section 1328(a) deals generally with the discharge of all debts under Chapter 13 whereas section 294f(g) deals only with the discharge of HEAL loans. Section 1328(a) was enacted in 1978. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2650 (1978). Section 294f(g), as originally enacted in 1976, was repealed in 1978 as unnecessary because the provisions for the discharge of student loans were set forth in the Bankruptcy Code, (citations omitted) Congress, however, reenacted section 294f(g) in 1981 and made the discharge of HEAL loans even more difficult than the original enactment by adding subsections (2) and (3). Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357 (1981). In reenacting section 294f(g), Congress was presumably aware of section 1328(a)’s more general discharge provision and other previously enacted provisions of the Bankruptcy Code dealing with the discharge of educational loans, (citations omitted) To give meaning to both section 294f(g) and section 1328(a), section 294f(g) must be the limited exception to section 1328(a)’s general rule that educational loans are dischargeable. Accordingly, when any debtor is seeking to discharge an HEAL loan, he or she must meet the three requirements specified in section 294f(g).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(g) A debt which is a loan insured under the authority of this subpart may be released by a discharge in bankruptcy under Title 11, United States Code, 11 U.S.C. sections 101 et seq., only if such discharge is granted— (1) after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the first date, as specified in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 294d(a)(2) of this title, when repayment of such loan is required; (2) upon a finding by the Bankruptcy Court that the nondischarge of such debt would be unconscionable; and (3) upon the condition that the Secretary shall not have waived the Secretary’s rights to apply subsection (f) to the borrower and the discharged debt.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Section 1328(a) must be reconciled with section 294f(g). Where two statutes deed with the same subject matter, they are to be read in pari materia and harmonized when possible, (citations omitted) We are guided by certain tenets of statutory construction. First, a specific statute takes precedence over a more general statute, (citations omitted) Second, a later statute may limit the scope of an earlier statute, (citations omitted)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.